Ktèma : civilisations de l'Orient,

de la Grèce et de Rome
antiques

Polish Reflections: The Reception of the Defeat of Athens in the

Works of Gottfried Ernst Groddeck and Joachim Lelewel
Maciej Junkiert

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Junkiert Maciej. Polish Reflections: The Reception of the Defeat of Athens in the Works of Gottfried Ernst Groddeck and
Joachim Lelewel. In: Ktèma : civilisations de l'Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome antiques, N°42, 2017. pp. 115-125;

doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/ktema.2017.1519

https://www.persee.fr/doc/ktema_0221-5896_2017_num_42_1_1519

Fichier pdf généré le 07/05/2021

Résumé
This article describes how the Polish intellectuals G. E. Groddeck (1763– 1825) and Joachim
Lelewel (1786– 1861) referenced and analysed events connected with the fall of Athens in the
Peloponnesian War. It aims to show how treatments of ancient Athens changed after 1795, when
the Polish– Lithuanian Commonwealth ceased to be an independent country and disappeared
from the map of Europe. This transition resulted in the promotion of Greek history as a model for
Poland’s modern national identity, but only in the period after Poland had already been defeated.
The defeat of Athens was therefore a topic of great interest for Polish scholarship, and scholars
such as Groddeck and Lelewel disagreed fundamentally about its significance for Poland in this
situation.

Zusammenfassung
Der Artikel zeichnet nach, wie die polnischen Intellektuellen G. E. Groddeck und Joachim Lelewel
politische Geschehnisse analysierten, die sie mit Athens Niederlage im Peloponnesischen Krieg
verknüpften. Anhand dieser Beispiele kann die Veränderung im Umgang mit dem antiken Athen
gezeigt werden, die in der polnischen Literatur und Kultur nach 1795 erfolgte, nachdem die
Königliche Republik der polnischen Krone und des Großfürstentums Litauen ihre Unabhängigkeit
verloren hatte und von der europäischen Landkarte verschwunden war. So erklärt sich der
Übergang hin zur Interpretation der griechischen Geschichte als eines Modells für Polens
nationale Identität in der Moderne, allerdings erst, nachdem Polen bereits besiegt war. Die
Niederlage Athens war somit von hohem Interesse für die polnische Wissenschaft, und Gelehrte
wie Groddeck und Lelewel bewerteten ihre Bedeutung für die neue Situation Polens grundlegend
verschieden.
 Polish Reflections: The Reception of the Defeat of Athens in the
Works of Gottfried Ernst Groddeck and Joachim Lelewel

Abstract–. This article describes how the Polish intellectuals G.E. Groddeck (1763–1825) and Joachim
Lelewel (1786–1861) referenced and analysed events connected with the fall of Athens in the Peloponnesian
War. It aims to show how treatments of ancient Athens changed after 1795, when the Polish–Lithuanian
Commonwealth ceased to be an independent country and disappeared from the map of Europe. This
transition resulted in the promotion of Greek history as a model for Poland’s modern national identity, but
only in the period after Poland had already been defeated. The defeat of Athens was therefore a topic of great
interest for Polish scholarship, and scholars such as Groddeck and Lelewel disagreed fundamentally about its
significance for Poland in this situation.
Zusammenfassung–. Der Artikel zeichnet nach, wie die polnischen Intellektuellen G.E.Groddeck und
Joachim Lelewel politische Geschehnisse analysierten, die sie mit Athens Niederlage im Peloponnesischen
Krieg verknüpften. Anhand dieser Beispiele kann die Veränderung im Umgang mit dem antiken Athen
gezeigt werden, die in der polnischen Literatur und Kultur nach 1795 erfolgte, nachdem die Königliche
Republik der polnischen Krone und des Großfürstentums Litauen ihre Unabhängigkeit verloren hatte und
von der europäischen Landkarte verschwunden war. So erklärt sich der Übergang hin zur Interpretation
der griechischen Geschichte als eines Modells für Polens nationale Identität in der Moderne, allerdings erst,
nachdem Polen bereits besiegt war. Die Niederlage Athens war somit von hohem Interesse für die polnische
Wissenschaft, und Gelehrte wie Groddeck und Lelewel bewerteten ihre Bedeutung für die neue Situation
Polens grundlegend verschieden.

I. Groddeck, Lelewel, and the Fall of Poland in the late–18th Century

Polish independence ended in 1795 when the ‘third partition’ took place. At this time, Russia,
Prussia, and Austria absorbed Polish territory and gained control over all peoples residing there.
Immediately afterward, members of the intellectual elite attempted to explain how one should react
to the dissolution of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, a multinational nation with a unique
political system that was related to the solutions of Roman republicanism.
Two tendencies appeared. Members of the older generation who had fought for Polish
independence and were acutely affected by the fall of their own country and its ensuing political
degradation usually attempted to express their despair at the loss of their country and disbelief in
what had happened. Like the protagonists of this paper, their representations of difficult questions
about the future of Poland echoed classical authors and themes. Unlike the protagonists of this
paper, many were forced to abandon writing and to undertake different forms of activity, especially

KTÈMA 42 / 2017

KTEMA42.indb 115 11/10/17 13:47

 116 maciej junkiert

in the face of oppressive policies that were discriminatory towards the nobility.1 A contrasting
attitude was represented by the generation which did not remember Polish independence, or
remembered it only partially and incompletely. Representatives of this new generation openly
expressed eagerness to renew the fight at any price, including the happiness of their families or
their own lives.
This paper focusses on two important intellectuals who attempted to address the historical
situation of Poland in this period by means of recalling the history and literature of ancient Greeks.
One of them, Groddeck, was a classical philologist, the other, Lelewel, was a historian who was
interested both in classical antiquity and in the history of western Slavic areas.
Gottfried Ernst Groddeck (1763–1825) was German, although he was born in Gdańsk, a
multi–ethnic harbour city on the Baltic Sea with a complex history and intense relationships with
the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, to which it had belonged since 1457. Owing to its role as a
major trading port, Gdańsk was a city with numerous tax privileges and far–reaching independence
from the Polish royalty. Groddeck himself descended from a noble family with scholarly traditions.
Very early on, he gave evidence of his unusual talents, owing to which he decided to study in
Göttingen after graduating from high school in Gdańsk. He studied theology and philology,
and attended the famous seminars of Christian Gottlob Heyne. Despite his German origins and
German education, Groddeck spoke Polish, as did his entire family, a fact which displayed their
deep attachment to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. This attachment probably explains
why he accepted the position of home teacher to the sons of Prince Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski
(1734–1823) once he had finished his doctoral thesis.2 He took up residence in Puławy, a town that
was in those times an important intellectual and artistic centre of the Czartoryski family, who were
in favour of the idea that Poland should cooperate with Russia. In 1804 he became a professor of
philology at the rebuilt Vilnius University.
It should be emphasised that both the estate in Puławy and the university in Vilnius were key
institutions of Polish culture and education. After the first partition, the Czartoryski family had
supported important Polish writers and intellectuals and taken to collecting historical artefacts
which documented the centuries–old history of Poland, aiming to preserve the diverse character of
the Polish heritage. When the Russian Tzar appointed Adam Jerzy Czartoryski, the son of Prince
Adam Kazimierz, custodian of the Vilnius educational district, he compelled the reformed college
to comply in every detail with the model set by German enlightenment universities.3 Groddeck,
educated in Göttingen, was therefore well–suited for the projects of the wealthy aristocratic family.4
Joachim Lelewel (1786–1861) was Groddeck’s student. Groddeck taught him the contemporary
methods of historical research, read his thesis, and continued to offer guidance until Lelewel reached
research independence. Lelewel then became a professor at the universities in Vilnius and Warsaw.
Lelewel’s family was from France, but they were forced to leave it after the St. Bartholomew’s Day
massacre in 1572. They moved to Austria and later to the northern–eastern parts of Poland. As
Lelewel himself emphasised, his family had chosen Polish identity and nationality. Lelewel’s father

(1)  On this issue see Przybylski 1983.

(2)  Groddeck’s doctoral dissertation remains a point of discussion, though the prevalent opinion is that he was awarded
the title on the basis of De Hymnorum Homericorum reliquiis commentatio from 1786. See Rothe 2014, p. 2. About
Groddeck’s works see also Szantyr 1937; Mężyński 1974.
(3) See Beauvois 1977.
(4)  When Groddeck began working in Vilnius it was a university without classical philology. The task of the German
scholar was to build the syllabus from scratch, as well as to collect appropriate staff and library resources.

KTEMA42.indb 116 11/10/17 13:47

 polish reflections 117

obtained Polish knighthood in 1768; according to the son, this was an important turning point in
the lives of the Polonised family.5
Lelewel’s life and work is divided into two parts. On the one hand, he tried to analyse Slavic and
Polish history. On the other hand, he engaged in patriotic activity. After taking part in the November
Uprising (1830–1831), which was an attempt to end Poland’s dependency on Russia, the Russians
threatened him with prosecution and he was forced to flee Poland. He emigrated to Brussels and
was considered an important figure of the emerging democratic left, which championed the rebirth
of a Poland that would not be monarchical or class–based, as before the partitions.

II. The Enlightenment and Romantic positions after the Fall of Poland

Groddeck and Lelewel differing decisions illustrate the choices of the two generations that
were confronted with the necessity to redefine their opinions and attitudes in the face of the fall of
Poland. The older and the younger scholar were similar in terms of their intellectual background
and attitude to knowledge and education: The search for knowledge was their tool for widening
the area of people’s freedom, and they thought of education as the only way to create responsible
citizens. Nevertheless, the fate of Poland set them a challenge which they answered in different
ways.
Groddeck assumed that a change in the political situation, even a drastic one, should not
influence his research aims and didactic methods. Research and teaching were his invariable
priorities. The younger Lelewel was of a more romantic opinion. He understood both research and
teaching as patriotic tasks. His search for knowledge about the oldest history of the Poles aimed
at making students aware of how their ancestors had dealt with the problems of their country and
played a role in the history of Europe. His analysis of Poland emphasised the politic and social
factors that lead to its fall, especially serfdom and the forced labour of peasants for the nobility.
Thus, while Groddeck remained a representative of the Enlightenment till the end of his days,
Lelewel became a patron of the birth of the romantic movement in Poland.
The difference of opinion that arose between such representatives of the two generations is
referred to as the conflict between the classicists and the romanticists. Seen in a wider European
perspective, it is another form of the Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes. After the earlier Italian
and the French versions of the querelle, late 18th and early 19th century intellectuals revaluated
the role of ancient authorities in the shaping of modern aesthetic and cultural questions.6 German
philosophers, especially Friedrich Schiller and Friedrich Schlegel were important for the Polish
reception of this reevaluation, particularly in respect to their emphasis on the model offered by
ancient Greece.7 According to Anthony Andurand:
[…] Ce n’est que dans les années 1790, en réaction à la Révolution française, que le mythe grec
européen fait place à un mythe grec allemand, spécifiquement national, fondé sur l’idée d’un rapport
particulier entre Grecs anciens et Allemands modernes. Si la Révolution française avait cherché ses
références et ses modèles surtout dans l’Antiquité romaine, l’Allemagne faisait, elle, dans le sillage de
Winckelmann et par l’intermédiaire de Humboldt, le choix de la Grèce.8
The so–called Griechenmythos that emerged in Germany in the first two decades of the 19th century
was important in Polish culture because it referred to the Greek road to perfection as the ability to

(5) See Zawadzka 2013, p. 89–91.

(6) See Fumaroli 2001, p. 24–27.
(7) See Jauss 1970 and Ciechanowska 1924/1925.
(8) See Andurand 2013, p. 49.

KTEMA42.indb 117 11/10/17 13:47

 118 maciej junkiert

adapt, and could therefore become an operative point of reference for Polish artists and the larger
Polish nation. This was particularly the case as there were some similarities between Germany
and Poland in regard to their relationship to classical antiquity. Since the late Middle Ages the
ancient traditions had constituted an integral part of the Polish culture and politics. Especially
Latin as the language of the noble elites was valued. Moreover, some Polish state institutions
related directly to the Roman tradition of republicanism. However, the fall of Poland had triggered
a crisis of the attachment to latinitas, so that, like the members of the German elite described by
Andurand, the Polish elite was turning away from Rome in search of new models for an emerging
national identity. The Polish turn toward ancient Greece thus mirrored German interest in the
Griechenmythos. Crucially, according to Andurand, Polish intellectuals and artists focused on the
early “European” version of this myth.

III. Understanding Greece in Post–Partition Poland

In post–partition Poland, Greek antiquity was understood either as a period characterized by the
existence of free and competitive individuals who broadened the horizons of their artistic creativity
(understood as the romanticist way after Winckelmann) or as a reservoir of eternal aesthetic and
political norms which were negative towards revolutionary changes that might undermine the
social order in the name of an uncertain fight for independence (an attitude derived from French
classicism, and reinforced by the experience of the Enlightenment in Poland).9
These differing approaches to classical antiquity are reflected in the work of Lelewel and
Groddeck. Lelewel looks at antiquity from the perspective of emerging romanticism in Poland,
whereas Groddeck’s approach is more cautious and conservative. Groddeck discussed his opinions
on studying ancient literatures and languages in Programme du cours de littérature ancienne à
l’Université (1810), which was a recapitulation of his first years of work and also of an earlier and
much more theoretical publication called Briefe über das Studium der alten Literatur (1800).
According to Groddeck, studying antiquity helps to promote human freedom and maturity.
First, getting to know the ancient cultures helps the student to experience the early history
of mankind. When students analyse ancient texts, they experience the difference between the
beginning of history and the present. Second, the effort required to study antiquity favours the
mobilisation and perfection of the students’ intellect. Third, the accumulated knowledge and the
thoughts revolving around it encourage human creativity and inventiveness, so that analysis of the
past creates new ideas, concepts, and works. The study of the ancient world thus becomes useful
for social life, but only indirectly.
Lelewel defined the applicability of studying ancient history differently, and also defined human
freedom differently. Ancient history was for him an illustration of the development of freedom
among different nations. He described this approach in the theoretical Historyka tudzież O łatwym
i pożytecznym nauczaniu historii (History or On the easy and Useful Teaching of History, 1815).
According to his view, the Greeks had achieved the greatest development of human freedom. This
scholarly direction responded to the political situation: during his lectures, Lelewel talked about the

(9)  Cf. J. Axer: “In the early nineteenth century, German Neohumanism began to dominate the region’s reflections
on antiquity. Its characteristic philhellenism harmonized with Romanticism. Hybrid forms of the reception of antiquity
emerged, stemming from new stimuli merging with domesticated Latin culture, which reached deep into social structures,
and with French elite culture.”

KTEMA42.indb 118 11/10/17 13:47

 polish reflections 119

historical freedom of ancient nations to Poles who had lost their freedom. It was a painful topic, but
of great importance for the young and patriotic students.
As Jerzy Axer wrote:10
In western European literature, art, and journalism, the classical tradition consolidated the positive
attitude of the citizens toward their state and strengthened its position in disputes with other powers
(e.g., “Latin” France vs. “Hellenic” Germany). In central–eastern Europe, antiquity served to express
attitudes of indifference or hostility toward foreign authority.11
Axer’s scholarship addresses complex issues that cannot be addressed here, however certain bases
should be mentioned. On the one hand, the rebirth of the fascination with Greece which took
place in Germany was also a discovery for Polish writers and intellectuals. On the other hand, the
advent of romanticism assumed a break with the parroting of ancient authorities and subsequent
followers. Thus, Polish romanticists took over the German delight with Greek art and literature
but they made sure that the fascination did not conflict with their appeals for originality in artistic
expression. Moreover, for Polish intellectuals, the classical tradition had a political use. However
painful they may have been for the discussants or the audience, discussions of the ancient traditions
were relatively safe, serving as a code that allowed intellectuals to communicate with the readers or
listeners without attracting the attention of the censor. This is one reason why antiquity appears
in both Groddeck’s and especially Lelewel’s lectures and research. While Groddeck treated ancient
Greece as an important topic for the world of research and as a means of educating young people,
for Lelewel ancient Greece was only a vehicle for commenting on contemporary reality. This is
why his lectures in Warsaw and Vilnius attracted large crowds of people who were not so much
interested in the distant past as about the relation between the old freedom and its lack in the
present.

IV. Poland, Greece, and Imagined Communities

According to Axer, the end of Polish independence triggered changes in the paradigm that
governed Polish attitudes towards antiquity. The necessity to create the Polish nation as an
imagined community redefined these attitudes and made them evolve faster. The Polish–Lithuanian
Commonwealth had been a political commonwealth in which a variety of nations and religions
were represented. After the fall of the country, the processes owing to which this multinational
political commonwealth was superseded by a monoethnic community became more powerful. The
Poles searched for new historical paradigms in the history, paradigms that would allow them to
verbalise their belief in Polish national identity. Athens took the place of Rome in the imagination
of the elite, and Poland appeared as the new Greece, though only temporarily. Thus the importance
of the German Griechenmythos. Polish artists and intellectuals were watching closely the creation
of the German Kulturnation and wondering whether national consolidation was not possible for
Poland, as well. Though they had lost their country, they nevertheless tried to rebuild their identity
on the basis of the language, literature and the fascination with a broadly understood folk culture.12
Classical models were also important, however. A good example of a person who found Polish
identity by referring to ancient models can be found in the works of Kazimierz Brodziński, a poet,
literary critic and theoretician, who was connected with the German language and culture since his

(10)  A synthetic description of Axer’s views can be found in: Axer 2010.
(11)  Ibidem, p. 150–151. See also Kalinowska 2013.
(12)  Cf. Junkiert 2013, 2014.

KTEMA42.indb 119 11/10/17 13:47

 120 maciej junkiert

early years.13 In 1818 Brodziński initiated a dispute between the classicists and the romantics in
Poland. The ‘classics’ included ancient Greeks and Romans and also French culture. The romantics
referenced the Middle Ages and the German culture. Brodziński defined the basic difficulty for
the Poles. To parrot one side of this dispute and decide in favour of either French or German
models would be a trap. Brodziński appealed for Poles to search out a Slavic originality that was
independent from alien ideals. However, his ideal of Slavic attachment to folk culture, freedom and
life according to nature was actually modelled on German neohumanism and philhellenism.
Brodziński used a carefully planned strategy to avoid mentioning the sources of his thoughts or
their adaptation to the conditions of the Polish political and social life, in order not to seem to be
promoting foreign models, but rather representing the distinctive way in which the Polish “spirit”
should evolve. The Griechenmythos played an important role in his imagined Polish community.
Shunning the Roman model, he strove to verify whether the Polish, like the Germans, could play
the role of “modern Greeks”.14

V. Poland and Friedrich Schlegel

Schlegel had an especially important influence on the Polish reception of antiquity. Schlegel
belonged to the most avidly read German thinkers and he played an immense role in the shaping
of early Romanticist aesthetics in Polish literature.15 In Schlegel’s view, only three events in the
history of ancient Greece deserved to be called decisive. The conflict with Persia allowed the Greeks
to believe in their own political power and independence. The Peloponnesian War broke the power
of the Hellenes, who turned against themselves mainly due to the destructive conflicts between the
Athenians and the Dorians, who included the Spartans and their allies. Towards the end, Alexander
the Great’s campaigns popularised Greek literature and language over extensive lands in Asia. The
magnificence of Greek history, as Schlegel repeats after Winckelmann, was possible owing to the
full and unhampered freedom that had engendered cultural originality and greatness.
Schlegel’s teachings decidedly favoured Athens over Sparta. In Schlegel’s view, Athens did not
lose the Peloponnesian War to Sparta. Instead, the Athenians defeated themselves due to a lack of
control over the devastating intellectual forces which blew Athens apart from the inside. Schlegel
referred mainly to the activity of the Sophists, but the main message was crucial. The defeats
suffered by Athens cannot be viewed as a historical catastrophe, since they were inflicted by the
Athenians themselves.16 Although a temptation to perceive similarities between Polish history
and the fate of Athens surfaced soon after partition, Polish writers, scientists and thinkers initially
hesitated to adopt Schlegel’s views: they were afraid to affirm that the reason for Poland’s problems
potentially resided in the country itself. However, several decades later influential historians,
including Lelewel, explained Poland’s fall along these lines: like Athens, Poland had defeated itself.
Groddeck also worked toward Schlegel’s view that Athens had defeated itself, but the process
took over 30 years. Two of his works should be mentioned. An early book comparing ancient and

(13) Brodziński belonged to the first generation who began their education in post–partition Poland in which in fact
Poland did not exist any longer. The future soldier in Napoleon’s army and later university professor began his education
in schools in which the Polish language was only used during religion classes: all other subjects were taught in German or
Latin. The young poet knew none of these languages before he started school.
(14) See Fuhrmann 1979; Rüegg 1985; Landfester 1996; Bruhns 2005; Andurand 2013. On the culture of classical
studies in Germany in the 19th Century, see Most 2001, p. V–XII; Marchand 1996.
(15) Cf. Muhlack 2011; Süssmann 2012; Morley 2014; Meister 2013.
(16)  See Rood in this volume on Plato’s Menexenus, which is an important source for the idea that the Athenians
defeated themselves.

KTEMA42.indb 120 11/10/17 13:47

 polish reflections 121

contemporary literature,17 written in 1788, immediately after starting working for the Czartoryski
family, and a synthesis of the history of Greek literature,18 whose final version was edited in 1821,
some years before the death of the philologist.
In his early work, Groddeck surprisingly assumed that no historical event from Homer to
Lucian of Samosata required particular rethinking. As also in Schlegel’s early works, Groddeck
described Greek history as a thousand–year period of greatness marked by literary and intellectual
achievements, to which he compared the unimportant achievements of contemporary German
literature. In his view, the Greek intellectual achievement was beyond comparison:
Wo aber auch ein Volk, das unter den mannigfaltigsten politischen Revolutionen, in einem
gleich langen Zeitraum von wenigstens tausend Jahren, eine so ununterbrochene Reihe von
außerordentlichen Menschen aus seiner Mitte hervorgehen ließ, die nicht allein durch ihre Taten,
sondern auch und fast noch mehr durch die in ihren Schriften aufgestellten unsterblichen Denkmale
ihres Geistes, die bewunderten Lehrer, Beispiele und Muster für alle kommenden, der Kultur sich
entfaltenden, Geschlechter wurden.19
For Groddeck, the centuries–old durability of the Greek culture is the antonym of the German
culture which is not resistant to even the slightest intellectual or philosophical novelty. The best
example of the degeneration of German literature under the influence of philosophy was the
popularity of Kant and his students. In this aspect Groddeck represented a group of German
university elite which opposed the new philosophy and, as a consequence, a new vision of the
society, education, and culture.
In contrast, Groddeck’s textbook of 1821 gave Athens defeat by Sparta an immense role. Here
he wanted to show the history of the Greek literature in accordance with the already prevailing
historicism:
Historia Graecorum et Romanorum litteraria, artium ac doctrinarium, apud utramque gentem
sermone scriptisve traditarum, exponit initia, processus, incrementia, regressus, defectum, additis
causis, quibus quaeque ex alio in aliud vicissitude atque mutatio effecta sit […].20
Such a plan for the history of literature, which compares the fate of cultures to living organisms
could not avoid Athens as the place where Greek culture flourished to its greatest extent, and
therefore could not avoid the fall of Athens in the Peloponnesian war. He referred to the fall as
the key turning point that divided the era of Greek greatness from the period of decline and slow
downfall. His description of the career of Aristophanes furnishes an example:
Aristophanes, civis Atheniensis, veteris Comoediae princeps, belli Peloponnesiaci maxime
temporibus floruit: quo profligato, et populari reip. Atheniensis forma in paucorum dominationem,
a Lacedaemone victore constitutam, abeunte, vetus in mediam transiit comoedia; unde ad utramque
vulgo refertur. […] Sed exstant fecundissimi ingenii aeterna monumenta, fabulae Aristophaneae,
quasi adeat, quicunque Athenarum, qualis tunc erat, statum, popularis regiminis effrenatam
licentiam, civium perditissimorum mores corruptos, potentiorum flagitia, arrogantiam, avaritiam,
fraudes, Sophistarum vaniloquentiam ac disciplinam perniciosissimam, plebis insanientis summam
levitatem et inconstantiam […]21.
Moreover, since he believed that European culture since the Greeks had not equalled the Greek
achievement, for him the fall of Athens ended the era of cultural greatness not only of Greek
civilisation, but of Europe as a whole, forever. Groddeck understood Europe before and after the
fall of Athens as two different civilisations.

(17)  Groddeck 1788.

(18)  Groddeck 1821.
(19)  Ibidem, p. 5.
(20)  Ibidem, p. 1.
(21)  Ibidem, p. 168.

KTEMA42.indb 121 11/10/17 13:47

 122 maciej junkiert

Groddeck’s main task at the university was to teach future junior high school teachers in
Polish schools, and he seems to have understood teaching about ancient literature to his students
as a mission. He argued that ancient Greeks developed knowledge and skills with which they
strengthened human nobility and sagacity—until the fall of Athens. Thanks to classical education,
the Poles could belong to this earlier Mediterranean civilization. He thus assumed the role of
antiquarian and depositor of the Greek greatness. This is where I notice a difference between
the opinions of Groddeck and Humboldt. For Groddeck, knowledge about antiquity was not
taught in order to shape characters and minds, but as knowledge for its own sake, knowledge
that authenticates one’s belonging to a particular civilisation—this is how Groddeck attempted to
transfer the German model of education to Poland’s universities, which were completely under
Russian control.
In case of Joachim Lelewel, it is relevant to examine Dzieje starożytne22, a history of ancient
Greece he prepared for his students in 1818. Among his sources we encounter key 18th century
English and French Enlightenment historians, for instance John Gillies, William Mitford, and
Charles Rollin. He was slightly less interested in Mitford, according to whom the democratic
blindness of the Athenian masses caused the Peloponnesian War. Mitford had noticed a similar
process in revolution–stricken France. As Jennifer Tolbert Roberts said:23
Greek and French politics cast light on the another, Mitford maintains, and show that neither state
is alone in atrocity. Although the parallel Mitford draws between the tribunal of the Committee
of Public Welfare in Paris and the Thirty Tyrants at Athens might seem at first to cast no shadow
over the Athenian democracy, in fact Mitford […] blames the democracy for the rise of the Thirty
and sees Critias himself as the inevitable product of democratic excess. Not surprisingly, however,
Mitford reached his conclusions about the evils of Athenian democracy prior to the revolution in
France. Aware that readers might suppose his work to be influenced by the revolution, Mitford takes
pains to assure them that his aversion to Athens is based entirely on the ancient evidence.24
Lelewel, by contrast, saw Athenian democracy in a positive light. When considering the
differences between Athens and Sparta, he decided that the latter had the qualities of an ominous
empire whose aim was to destroy the freedom of Athens. Lelewel looked for patterns in ancient
history that would allow him to talk directly about contemporaneity and avoid the lurking danger
of censorship. By means of reminding his readers of the character of these earlier powers, he figured
Sparta and Rome as imperial Russia and Athens as a direct model of Poland.
It is worth retracing the character of Lelewel’s historiographic narration on the example of two
issues in the Spartan history. The first pertains to explaining Lycurgus’ role in defining the Spartan
system. The second refers to the characteristics of the reasons for the Peloponnesian War. Lelewel’s
ideas are best understood by comparing them to those of Rollin, the author of Histoire ancienne,25
who reconstructed in a detailed way the importance of Lycurgus’ activity for the fate of Sparta.
Rollin appreciated the Spartan balance of power, effective and capable of quick action as a result
of the experience and status of aristocracy, but also—thanks to the Ephorate—restrained by the
citizens. Rollin also approved of the republican, that is, equalitarian, quality of Lycurgus’ reforms:
his limitations on the ominous influence of the desire for wealth and status, or the institution of
respect for elders and an education model in which children belong more to the state than to their
parents.

(22)  Lelewel 1966.

(23)  Roberts 1994, p. 203–206.
(24)  Ibidem, p. 205.
(25)  About Rollin’s works and his reception in France see Grell 1995.

KTEMA42.indb 122 11/10/17 13:47

 polish reflections 123

Rollin did not see Sparta as completely good, analysing the drawbacks of the Spartan system in
order to eliminate them and adapt Spartan principles to contemporary politics, Rollin was decidedly
opposed to the dehumanising aspects of the Spartan life: the killing of disabled children, lack of
respect for the development of the human mind, and numerous slaves working for the benefit of the
legal citizens. This aspect of Rollin’s reflections is definitely anti–Spartan in character.26
Lelewel’s views were quite different from Rollin’s. He argued that exploitation and violence were
the foundations of Sparta. He stigmatised the power of a state which was established to take away
the freedom and life of others. Nothing could speak on its behalf. This was because for him and his
readers, Sparta was identified with Russia.
In respect to the second issue, namely how to describe the causes of the Peloponnesian war
we may refer to the contrast between Lelewel and another of his sources. In Gillies’ work The
history of ancient Greece, its colonies and conquests; from the earliest accounts, till the division of
the Macedonian empire in the East. Including the history of literature, philosophy, and the fine arts
(1786), which Lelewel knew thanks to the French translation, the reasons for the Peloponnesian
War were analysed in accordance with Thucydides, and show the multifarious image of the conflict
and the rivalry between Athens and Sparta. On the basis of the fates of Corcyra and Potidaea,
Gillies described two parallel causes for the war. First, he described the increasing tension between
the rivalling empires, Athens and Sparta. Second, he presented the process of revaluating the
traditional relations between the metropolis and its colonies. As a result of the accumulation of
these processes, Hellas was headed toward the war without which Sparta would not be capable to
stop Athens’ increasing economic and political power. Its traditional influence was decreasing and
its controversial attitude towards the conflict with Persia favoured the ongoing isolation of Sparta
and its allies.27
Lelewel tended towards a similar view, but puts the figure of Pericles in the centre. Pericles
was a great individual who answered for the success of the community. The Athenian democracy
turned out to be sensitive to the loss of Periclean authority, without whom the people succumbed
to the influence of the demagogues and the competing parties. Lelewel emphasised that the free and
wonderful Athenian people, who were ready to undertake the boldest of challenges, thus became
a ruthless ruler towards the rest of the Greek world.28 Lelewel’s contemporary reference is to the
Polish political system, referred to as “noble’s democracy”. It had been to a similar extent sensitive
to the competition between the different political factions which weakened the position of the king
in the country. Thus, his description of the reasons for the fall of Athens could be interpreted as an
analogy from the distant past which aptly described the causes of the catastrophe of the Polish state.
At the end, I would like to go back to the concealed source of Lelewel’s work, that is, Schlegel.
The Polish historian repeats Schlegel’s argument about the ominous influence of the Sophists on
the political and social life of Athens. Lelewel claims that:
The Sophists visited different Greek cities, they were received with hospitality in Athens. Their
mouths ready for gain, smooth–spoken with persistent issues and syllogisms, proving contrary
arguments, accepting both virtue and transgressions, nothing more serious or holy in human
relations could be found that they did not taint with blasphemy.29
In Polish conditions, this statement, transferred nearly mechanically from the Viennese lectures,
meant something entirely different than in the original Austrian context, since it refers to the
period before partition when Polish governmental institutions had included a range of mechanisms

(26) See Rollin 1822.

(27)  Gillies 1787, chapter 15.
(28)  According to Lelewel, “the Athenians were tyrannical” in relations to others. Lelewel 1966, p. 132.
(29)  Ibidem, p. 135.

KTEMA42.indb 123 11/10/17 13:47

 124 maciej junkiert

that allowed the nobility to limit the king’s executive power and the aristocracy’s political influence.
In the late 17th century these mechanisms led to Poland’s final incapacitation, since the patriotic
part of the nobility could not carry out reforms that had become necessary due to devastating wars
and the economic situation of the country continuously worsened. In the eyes of his readership, the
sophists from Lelewel’s work became similar to the opposing aristocrats, whose selfish arguments
and policies led to the fall of the country.

Conclusion

Groddeck and Lelewel’s significance stems from the fact that each of them initiated a new
understanding of classical philology and historiography. They remained important for a long time,
since the increasing hostility of the occupying powers meant that their actions were not directly
mimicked. Other researchers who could be equalled with them in terms of the level of research
and talent appeared only in the second half of the 19th century. Their books were therefore for
many decades basic reading for Poles who wanted to explore the fates and literatures of the ancient
nations.
Lelewel’s new approach to antiquity had therefore a significant influence. While Groddeck was
convinced that knowledge of ancient literature allowed students to approach the human ideal,
Lelewel treated the history of the Greeks as a source of knowledge about the present. Lelewel
substituted Groddeck’s academic distance for emotional engagement, and described the fall of
Athens as a result of excessive freedom, especially freedom of speech, which was appropriated by a
group of people who ignored the well–being of the entire country. Lelewel told the Poles: you were
Athenians and before the defeat, you had an empire. However, he avoided expressing a clear answer
to the question who they should be at present.
Dr Maciej Junkiert
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (Poland)
Translated by Jolanta Sypiańska

Bibliography

Andurand, A., 2013, Le mythe grec allemand: histoire d’une affinité élective, Rennes.
Axer, J., 2010, Central–Eastern Europe, in A Companion to the Classical tradition, ed. C. W. Kallendorf, Blackwell.
Beauvois, D., 1977, Lumières et societé en Europe de l’est: l’Université de Vilna et les écoles polonaises de l’empire
russe (1803–1832), Paris.
Bruhns, H., 2005, “Grecs, Romains et Germains au XIXe  siècle : quelle Antiquité pour l’État national
allemand?”, Anabases 1.
Ciechanowska, Z., 1924–1925, “Mickiewicz a Goethe: (ze studiów nad znajomością Goethego w Polsce)”,
Pamiętnik Literacki.
Fumaroli, M., 2001, Les abeilles et les araignées, in La Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes xviiE–xviiiE siècles,
édition établie et annotée par A.–M. Lecoq, Paris.
Fuhrmann, M., 1979, “Die ‘Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes’, der Nationalismus und die Deutsche
Klassik”, in Classical Influences on Western Thought. A. D. 1650–1870, ed. by R. R. Bolgar, Cambridge.

KTEMA42.indb 124 11/10/17 13:47

 polish reflections 125

Gillies, J., 1787, Histoire de l’ancienne Grèce, de ses colonies et de ses conquêtes, depuis les premiers temps,
jusqu’à la division de l’Empire Macédonien, dans l’Orient. On y a joint l’Histoire de la Littérature, de la
Philosophie & des Beaux-Arts, v. 3, Paris.
Grell, Ch., 1995, Le dix-huitième siècle et l’antiquité en France: 1680–1789, t. 1, Oxford.
Groddeck, G. E., 1821, Initia historiae graecorum litterariae: pars prior, Vilnae.
—, 1788, Ueber die Vergleichung der alten besonders griechischen mit der deutschen und neuern schönen
Literatur, Berlin.
Jauss, H. R., 1970, Literaturgeschichte als Provokation, Frankfurt/Main.
Junkiert, M., 2013, “Historyzm wobec starożytności w dziełach J. J. Winckelmanna, W. von Humboldta i
F. Schlegla. Próba rekonstrukcji i zarys polskiej recepcji”, Slavia Occidentalis 2.
—, 2014, Recepcja spartańskiej historii w pierwszych dekadach XIX wieku. Perspektywa polska: Groddeck—
Lelewel—Mickiewicz, in Sparta w kulturze polskiej, part I: Model recepcji, spojrzenie europejskie,
konteksty greckie, ed. by M. Borowska, M. Kalinowska, J. Speina, K. Tomaszuk, Warsaw.
Kalinowska, M., 2013, “Waning worlds and budding hopes: anti–idyllic visions of antiquity in Polish
Romanticism”, Classical Receptions Journal 3.
Landfester, M., 1996, Griechen und Deutsche: Der Mythos einer “Wahlverwandtschaft”, in Studien zur
Entwicklung des kollektiven Bewußtseins in der Neuzeit, hrsg. von h. berding, v. 3, Frankfurt/M.
Lelewel, J., 1966, Dzieje starożytne, ed. by T. Zawadzki, Warsaw.
Marchand, S. L., 1996, Down from Olympus. Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany 1750–1970, Princeton,
New Jersey.
Meister, K., 2013, Thukydides als Vorbild der Historiker. Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Paderborn.
Mężyński, K., 1974, Gotfryd Ernest Groddeck. Profesor Adama Mickiewicza. Próba rewizji, Gdańsk.
Morley, N., 2014, Thucydides and the Idea of History, London New York.
Most, G. W., 2001, “Preface”, in APOREMATA. Kritische Studien zur Philologiegeschichte, v. 5: Historicization—
Historisierung, hrsg. von G. W. Most, Göttingen.
Muhlack, U., 2011, Herodotus and Thucydides in the view of nineteenth–century German historians, in
A. Lianeri (ed.), The Western Time of Ancient History: historiographical encounters with the Greek and
Roman pasts, Cambridge.
Przybylski, R., 1983, Klasycyzm czyli prawdziwy koniec Królestwa Polskiego, Warsaw.
Roberts, J. T., 1994, Athens on Trial. The Antidemocratic Tradition in Western Thought, Princeton.
Rollin, Ch., 1822, Histoire ancienne, t. 7, Paris.
Rothe, H., 2014, Gottfried Ernst Groddeck und seine Korrespondenten, Berlin, New York.
Rüegg, W., 1985, Die Antike als Begründung des deutsche Nationalbewußtseins, in Antike in der Moderne, hrsg.
von W. schuller, Konstanz.
Schlegel, F., 1988, Geschichte der alten und neuen Literatur. Vorlesungen, gehalten zu Wien im Jahre 1812, in
Kritische Schriften und Fragmente. IV: 1812–1823, Paderborn.
Süßmann, J., 2012, Historicising the classics: how nineteenth–century German historiography changed the
perspective on historical tradition, in K. Harloe and N. Morley (eds.), Thucydides and the Modern World.
Reception, Reinterpretation and Influence from the Renaissance to the Present, Cambridge.
Szantyr, A., 1937, Działalność naukowa Godfryda Ernesta Grodka, in Z dziejów filologii klasycznej w Wilnie,
ed. by J. Oko, Vilnius.
Zawadzka, D., 2013, Lelewel i Mickiewicz. Paralela, Białystok.

KTEMA42.indb 125 11/10/17 13:47